Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 5/8/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So specificity is (was?) as follows:
> >
> > I have something in mind. It might be all
> > bears, it might be a group
> > of three bears that were ahead of three other
> > bears as they were
> > chasing us, it might be all bears that chase,
> > and (herein lies your
> > specificity) it might be the three chaser-type
> > bears that specifically
> > chased us, or just (some) three chaser-type
> > bears. The former is
> > specific, the latter is non specific. Is this
> > illustrative?
>
> Not very clearly.  Stick to simple examples until
> we get the fundamentals out of the way.  Suppose
> I say {lo cribe cu citka le jbari}. When I go and
> check, it does not matter which bears it is that
> are eating the berries, the statement is true if
> some bears are eating (have eaten, etc.) the
> berries.  On the other hand, if I say {le cribe
> cu citka le jbari}, the statement would be false
> even if some bears are eating the berries BUT
> they are not the ones I meant.  I know in advance

When put this way, the distinction is (I think) illustrated perfectly,
thank you. I now understand where my previously-described use of {le}
as only non-veridical would be unsatisfactory.

> > I disagree with this concept of specificity. If
>
> I am unsure what you mean that you disagree.  If

I mean with the concept of specificity which I had thought may be what
was meant, which is different from the one you described.

> you mean that this is not what separates {le}
> from {lo}, then you are simply wrong (and
> slightly rude for contradicting people who are
> trying to help you understand).  If you mean that

I don't wish to be rude. I should have used "no distinction has been
made clear to me" instead of "no distinction exists". In some cases,
however, I'd much rather my statements were wrong than to have to
perpetually and explicitly state that my view does not align with the
common view and [...].

> it is a dumb distinction or that it can be
> covered without using {le}/{lo}, then, assuming
> you understand what the distinction is, we can
> have a discussion (but note that the specificity
> of {le} is from one of the oldest strata of the
> language, going back to 1960 or so, so -- unless
> you can show how to reproduce it using material
> already at hand, you are unlikely to win this

I have no solution, though I dislike the idea of having a dual purpose
(veridicity/specificity) to such fundamental words.

Regarding specificity, what is it useful for? The utility of
veridicity is illustrated by the 'man that you thought was a woman
from a distance' example.

Perhaps I should now explain how I see quantification, and how I
incorporate specificity into my understanding of how Lojban works.

Keep in mind that I may explain things in a way that isn't similar to
strict definitions. This is because I strongly believe that those
sorts of definitions shouldn't be used to explain anything. Saying
that something is 'specific' or 'veridical' means nothing to someone
who isn't familiar with the uses of those words under the given very
narrow context. If readers disagree, then point out with which
statement. The veridicity of {_e} is not taken in account for the sake
of clarity.

{__ __ ro cribe} refers to all bears. At the very least all things
that were, are, and will be bears, everywhere (maybe even imaginary
bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, or hypothetical
I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me bears) - henceforth "all bears".

Now, let's say that you want to say "the bears that chase us are brown".

{__ __ ci cribe} refers to three bears (of potentially all bears) -
but you're not restricting it (any further than 'are-bears').

{__ __ ci cribe poi jersi} refers to three bears that are chasers
(are-bears and are-chasers) (of potentially all bears)

{ro __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to three
that-are-bears and that-are-chasers, and says that exactly each of
them (incidentally three) is brown.

{pa __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to three
that-are-bears and that-are-chasers, and says that exactly one of them
is brown.

{so __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} is as good as ungramattical.


{ro __ ci vi ca cribe poi vi ca jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to three
that-are-bears-here-now and that-are-chasers-here-now-of-us, and says
that exactly each of them is brown. (Other bears-h-n+chasers-h-n-of-us
may very well be brown.)

{ro __ ro vi ca cribe poi vi ca jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to all
that-are-bears-here-now and that-are-chasers-here-now-of-us, and says
that exactly each of them is brown. (all of them must be brown)

{ro __ ro cribe cu bunre} all bears at all times/places are brown
{ci __ ro cribe cu bunre} three and only three bears are/were/willbe brown

An inner {ro} finalizes/commits your restriction in that it says "no
other restrictions need apply". If you say:

{ro __ ro cribe}

you cannot say that you meant the same identity-group/referant/entity/"set" as

{ro __ ro cribe poi bunre}

unless you show that

{ro __ ro cribe cu bunre}

...good so far?

Now, when you have something in mind, like the pen on my desk, you can
do one of two things:

let context restrict: {ro __ pa vi cu penbi}, {ro __ pa penbi poi cpane}, ...
restrict it yourself: {ro __ ro vi cu penbi}

In the second, I've 'fully' restricted it. That is, the restriction
that I've provided exactly matches the pen that I have in mind
(there's only one pen here-now). Note that {pa} is not used in the
second. This is because I'm not saying that there is one pen that
exists here now. (What I was getting at with ro#, e.g. {ropa}, was
that people just might ask me how many pens exist by-me-now, and this
would let me preemptively answer that question).

{ro __ ci cribe cu bunre} some three bears (out of all) each of which
is/was/or will be brown. I'm letting context restrict. Filling the
blank space:

le: I'm lazy, and I have 3 bears in mind. I don't want to restrict it
fully, like I did in my pen example. Maybe restricting them is as easy
as saying that they're in my back yard here-now (and those three and
no others are, so I just put in the inner {ro} and restrict/{poi} it
using 'in my backyard here-now', and I'm set), maybe it's hard. I just
don't want to do it. So I leave it up to context. But I do have some 3
bears in mind (that hypothetically can be restricted-to). Anyway,
those 3 bears are brown.

lo: I don't have three bears in mind. But, I want to say that three
bears are brown.

...
ok, I've lost the specificity that you mentioned, or perhaps I never
had it. See, for that latter one, I'd just say (in your terms):

{cisu'o le ro cribe cu bunre} (or maybe exactly ci)

And shouldn't that be enough? Back to your example:

> Not very clearly.  Stick to simple examples until
> we get the fundamentals out of the way.  Suppose

> I say {lo cribe cu citka le jbari}. When I go and
> check, it does not matter which bears it is that
> are eating the berries, the statement is true if
> some bears are eating (have eaten, etc.) the

{su'o le ro cribe cu citka...} ? (or some specific number, perhaps)

> berries.  On the other hand, if I say {le cribe
> cu citka le jbari}, the statement would be false
> even if some bears are eating the berries BUT
> they are not the ones I meant.  I know in advance

{ro le su'o cribe cu citka...} ?

.uacu'i

> > Of the various uses of lVi, 1 is covered in
> > plural logic by the notion of non-distributive
> > (collective) predication.  As such it is not
> > appropriately expressed by a gadri, since it
> does
> > not involve something different from a
> > distributive predication but only a different
> way
> > of predicating on the same thing(s). It ought>>
>
> Just the last bit?  A description refers to a
> bunch of brodas (one way or another: "bunch" has
> at least two realizations) A sentence involving
> that description says something about those
> brodas -- that they have a certain property. Now
> it may say they have that property in either of
> two ways (at least): either each of them has it
> separately ("My students wear green hats" -- each
> of them wears a green hat), also called
> distributively, or they may have it collectively
> (non-distributively) ("My students surrounded the
> building" -- no one of them did, but acting
> together they did).  In the two examples, "my

I follow this part quite well.

> students" referred to exactly the same things in
> each case, the kids in my classes.  What is
> different is not in what is referred to but what
> is said of it, so the distributive/collective
> distinction belongs not with the referring
> expression (the description) but with the
> predicating part.  In addition, attaching the
> predication type to the description means some
> cases don't get dealt with: in "The people who
> surrounded the building wore green hats" the
> description is applied collectively (that is, it
> is based on"these people collectively surrounded
> the building" but the description is used
> distributively ("They each wore a green hat").
> In "The people wearing green hats surrounded the
> building" the opposite is the case.  And, in "my
> students wore green hats and surrounded the
> building, I need "my students" to be distributive
> and collective simultaneously -- one for one
> predicate, the other for the other. Lojban has
> nothing to mark these differences except the
> gadri (nothing like "separately" and
> "collectively" of the right size), so we continue
> to use them when we can and the difference is not
> obvious but is important.  Mainly, however, we
> take it that it is clear from context which is
> meant and then we can use {lo} (the least
> specified gadri) throughout.

How would you translate "my students wore green hats and surrounded
the building", or is your point that it cannot be translated well?

If I had the option, since you said that {lu'a} (an
individual/member/component of) and {lu'o} (a mass formed from) are on
their way out, then this problem could be solved by using those words
(once they become free) to indicate "seperately" or "collectively" in
relation to the... primary object(?) (that first one in a prenex, the
one that the others depend on, "each for it").

> <<> then to be somehow expressed in the predicate
> not
> > the arguments but there is presently no way to
> do
> > this in Lojban and no active suggestions how to
> > do it.  For the nonce then the difference is
> > still covered by the lV-lVi contrast, even
> though
> > this leaves some cases uncovered.  2, the
> > corporate form, which is about a different sort
> > of thing and so might be covered by a gadri, is
> > also still covered by lVi, often without
> noticing
> > the difference involved.  Should a predicate
> way
> > of dealing with the collective/distributive
> > distinction be devised, lVi might naturally be
>
> I'm again lost.>>
>
> Nowadays, {loi} etc. are used mainly for
> collective predication, but also for the
> corporate model.  If we get a way of getting the
> collective notion attached to the predicate, then
> {loi} could be used just for the corporate model.

I don't understand the distinction between corporate and collective,
or perhaps I don't see the corporate as valid.

Consider the GM example. First, I would say that the most appropriate
term is car-maker-company (x is company for purpose 'car-making'), and
that GM cannot be "reduced" - that is, no parts of it are themselves
incidentally car-maker-companies. But that's probably beside the
point, since GM can be readily seen as a car-maker. Does this mean
that the secretaries are car-makers? No. Are they composite parts of a
car-maker? Yes, they can be.

If GM occupied an office building, I could perhaps say "those that are
occupants, grouped, are a car-maker-company". We're basically saying
"the car maker company is composed of parts: the inhabitants of the
building" and conversely "the inhabitants of the building are parts of
that company". If I say "those that are car-makers, grouped, are a
car-maker", then yes, this is true, but it says nothing of
secretaries. Depending on how strict you are, it might even exclude
them (I opt for the "are some of what compose..." approach).

In the students example, there is a single surrounder-of-the-building.
Just one. What we're saying regarding students is that they are the
(only?) composite parts of this surrounder. So, to expand:

"My students surrounded the building."
"X is a surrounder of the building. My students are the (only?)
composite parts of X."

Is this not the way that 'collective/corporate predication' works?
This is how I see it as working, and so I don't see a difference
between corporate and collective - perhaps that in one, you mean "are
some parts of..." vs. "are the only parts of..."?

> > And, by the way, {lo broda} in primary
> > usage entails that there are broda (not in the
> > scope of negations, world altering modals,
> > absttractions or opque contexts).  I am less
> > clear what the other version says about simple
> > {lo broda} except that on occasion at least, it
> > is said to yield true claims from primary
> > occurrences even when there are no brodas and
> to
> > authorize external generalization from opaque
> > contexts.  To do these things, it can no longer
> > refer to brodas as such but moves to something
> > at a different level

I don't see what you mean by "primary occurance", "external
generalization", and "opaque contexts". An example would probably
clear this up.

> <<The biggest aspect of my suggestion is that
> {lo}-types are capable of
> handling all cases thus-far provided, and that
> {le} is /not/ a subset
> of {lo}. >>
>
> Well, any time {le} is appropiate, {lo} may be
> used instead, but the opposite is not true.  {lo}
> cannot be used to specify referents.
>
> They are completely seperate. It may as well be
> that {le}
> didn't exist.
>
> Well, we could get along without the distinction
> (and maybe should) but for now we need {le}
> because {lo} can't do its job, which is built
> into Lojban.
>
> <<And, with that in mind, this lets us
> re-introduce the
> {le}-types as a compliment to the {lo}-types,
> with the very same
> usage, except that with {le} you get "by my
> definition", while with
> {lo} you get "by common definition".>>
>
> This strikes me as a bad idea, but if you want
> that distinction there are other ways to do it in
> Lojban -- and {le} doesn't do it.

What are these ways? The distinction I was describing, in what I
consider to be 'human-readable' terms, is verificity. "It has to be
true for me, it doesn't have to be true for everyone" is equivalent to
"I'm using my definition for this".